Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[freepatriot32]

FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.

Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property.

Puckett’s then-74-year-old father, William Vernon Puckett, was arrested during a raid on the property on Oct. 18, 2001. He later entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to a 10-year probated sentence and a $5,000 fine.

During the three-day trial this week, the elder Puckett testified that his son had no knowledge of the marijuana-growing operation, said Dan Hurley, Ronnie Puckett’s attorney.

At the time, Ronnie Puckett was grieving the death of his wife and was not spending much time in his fields, Hurley said.

Two outstanding arrest warrants remain for individuals allegedly involved in the marijuana operation.

Johnny Actkinson, 287th District Attorney, confirmed that Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher, are wanted on marijuana possession charges.

Kathy Fancher, Bill Fancher’s wife, testified against Ronnie Puckett as part of an immunity deal.

In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state. The property was valued at approximately $484,000. The state can move to seize property if it is used for illegal drug purposes, Hurley said.

Puckett, however, appealed the ruling to the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo and won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure, Hurley said.

At the state’s request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case, Hurley said.

Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him.

‘‘He is incredibly relieved and happy,’’ Hurley said.

p.christine.smith@lubbockonline.com t 766-8754

[hotshot]

I can see the headlines...October 5, 1775: Feds seize large portions of Delaware, Penns., New Jersey, New York and Conn. under new racketering laws. Land owners accused of illegally casting musket balls, making gunpowder and barrels for muskets without a permit. Several illegal printing presses were seen in Vermont and Virginia so Feds took 35,700 acres from a George Washington and others. Two churches were leveled and the land seized to make two new Federal Parks due to someone suspected of ringing the bell in obstruction of justice by announcing that Feds were breaking down doors for inspections. Under the new federal wastewater laws twenty ships were seized because of reports of a crewman urinating over the side. Developing...

[tacticalogic]

I'm not discussing whether or not the jury made a mistake in finding him not guilty -- because I don't have enough information from this article to have an opinion.

There isn't enough information available in the article for anyone to be be second-guessing the jury, based on that information alone, IMHO.

[robertpaulsen]

He was found not guilty of possession. He was not found not guilty of "all crimes". Sheesh.

I don't know (from the article) what else he was charged with. I don't know if he was found guilty of other Texas crimes. I don't know if Texas law allows the "property" to be charged. I am not familiar with Texas asset forfeiture laws.

[Gianni]

In defense of robertpaulsen, I would not classify him or Roscoe as trolls. They can be repetative and frustrating at times, but they're entitled to their opinions.

The others, well, they at times not only cross the line, but leap beyond it in their 'logic.'

[rcofdayton]

The WOD is not just about money and power. The majority of Americans support it because they are afraid of the consequencs of these drugs. While I am very ambivalent about the WOD, I understand that both sides have very valid points. I do recognize that the WOD has been used to build bureacratic fiefdoms (money and power) but the majority of those who support the WOD do not support it for that reason.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

He was banned, probably for spamming. But he has returned to earth under the screen name of No King but Jesus.

[pageonetoo]

RobertP probably owns no barns, I doubt he has more than an acre, and could pour warm P out of a boot, without reading directions on the heal...
his type are what is taking our country down the road to socialism... if the g'umt says so, it is so!

I not only know the local Sheriff and many of his deputies, , but the States Atty, and a number of local judges. If I were charged with breaking a law, they would arrest, prosecute, and judge me... that is because they are all honorable folk... and EVERY ONE of them supports the legalization of Hemp... in private discussions. Their jobs depend on conforming to the party line, though, so they ENFORCE the law.

It is well to note that most of the folk supporting this WOD are the same ones that would think it wrong, and/or unfair, that they got a ticket for driving 70 in a 55 mph zone, because "everyone else does it", and "the speed limit is too slow"! Situational ethics are a wonderful thing.

[dwd1]

I know these people as I went to school with several of them... They have always been very decent and hardworking people...

And unless something is being grown for medical purposes, I am sure that Mr. Puckett is innocent...

And the state should not be able to ruin people without a conviction...

Muleshoe High School... Class 0f 1981...

[tacticalogic]

The WOD is not just about money and power. The majority of Americans support it because they are afraid of the consequencs of these drugs. While I am very ambivalent about the WOD, I understand that both sides have very valid points. I do recognize that the WOD has been used to build bureacratic fiefdoms (money and power) but the majority of those who support the WOD do not support it for that reason.

Any time you are more afraid of something, be it guns, drugs, pornography, terrorism, or whatever, than you are of losing your freedom then people who think you have too much freedom will play on that fear to try and get you to give up your freedom willingly.

[robertpaulsen]

Oh my. Haven't you turned into the little jack-booted thug!

Arrest robertpaulsen! He has an illegal plant and he's one of them pro-WODdies! "Ve vill make no exzeptions!"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

You really need to familiarize yourself with The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 before commenting further.

"(1) The bill requires the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture".

"Currently, when a property owner goes to Federal court to challenge a seizure of property, all the Government needs to do is make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to civil forfeiture. The owner then must establish that the property is innocent."

Second, the fact that I know the sheriff and the sheriff knows me does not put me in a "different light" or make me above the Rule of Law. What it does do is establish with him the fact that I'm a solid citizen in the community, something I'm proud of.

Based on both The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the fact that it is known that I would never grow pot on my property or elsewhere, I can envision us all having a good laugh about it.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Say it's Monday, start of another work week. Ya think "No King but Jesus" will be back at his desk at NORML this morning?

[robertpaulsen]

"Conspiracy to manufacture meth. Crime. Accessory to said manufacture. Crime"

Prove it. They said they were using the building for storage.

"The man in this article has been found innocent of all criminal charges again him."

Oh really? I must have missed that part. Could you please point that out in the article or retract it?

I read that he was only found not guilty of possession of marijuana.

[robertpaulsen]

"You a poker player?"

If you saw me play, you wouldn't describe me as such.

They invite me when they're short of cash.

[coloradan]

Prove it. They said they were using the building for storage.

And you said "knowingly" - if that can be proven, he loses the building. If not, no.

Oh really? I must have missed that part. Could you please point that out in the article or retract it?

From the article: "Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him." If the threat of prosecution is behind him, it means that no more charges will be forthcoming.

[tacticalogic]

The owner then must establish that the property is innocent.

How would you suggest that the owner establish the innocence of "the property" in this case? Regardless of wheather the owner is involved or not, "the property" was growing marijuana.

[Protagoras]

I'll plant a few weeds on your property and then take your property and split up the booty with some other thugs. You don't mind do you? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

[Ready4Freddy]

"Ronnie Puckett named his farm after me."

Lazbuddie is a town in Parmer County, actually. Named for D. Luther (Laz) Green and Andrew (Buddie) Sherley.

[DannyTN]

Agreed. A guilty verdict should be required.

[coloradan]

The land grows marijuana, opium poppies, coca plants, and other prohibited lifeforms. The seas support boats importing the drugs to the US, and the air supports cargo craft doing same. Both the air and the seas also contain detectable amounts of pollen and other traces of these drugs. Therefore, the land, the air, and the seas, indeed the entire earth must be forfeit to the federal government for violation of federal narcotics laws.

[robertpaulsen]

"If I were charged with breaking a law, they would arrest, prosecute, and judge me..."

No doubt.

But, given the scenario of finding one marijuana plant on your property, you think it would get that far? Then again, with you ... probably.

Just like I "probably owns no barns, I doubt he has more than an acre".